Are Post-Registration Audits Reducing Trademark Registry Deadwood?

Some conversation on the Oppendhal e-Trademarks listserv got us curious about the big-picture impact of the USPTO’s efforts to more aggressively audit post-registration use claims. The audit program kicked off in November 2017, and is described here. The program has been somewhat active, generating just over 12,000 Office Actions in roughly two years.

  • 2017: 798
  • 2018: 2,154
  • 2019: 5,926
  • 2020 (so far): 1,009

Audits of 1(a) registrations are slowly climbing, from 67% in 2017 to 75% in 2020; 44(e) and mixed 44(e) and 1(a) audits have remained a fairly constant 5% and 1.5% respectively, and 66(a) audits have actually dropped slightly from around 21% to around 15% of audits. Compared to overall numbers of registrations, though, registrations without 1(a) claims still get a lot more attention – both 44(e) registrations without 1(a) claims and 66(a) registrations are audited at a rate roughly twice their commonality in the registry since 2007.

Only about 550 registrations that received a post-registration audit are no longer active at all. A further 470-some registrations had audits and have fewer classes now than initially, but it’s far more complex than a blog post deserves to figure out exactly when during prosecution or post-registration each class dropped.

Since it’s hard to track whether individual goods or classes are dropped after an audit in a systematic manner, we did the next best thing and looked at a couple of random examples. Whatever the problems are with the methodology, the anecdotal research ended up being more fun anyway. The first two foreign-based registrations that I picked without a 1(a) registration basis were dramatically pared back, well beyond the audited goods or services; the two 1(a) registrations I happened to look at ended up providing additional specimens and their scope remained exactly the same. All the registrants were represented. I’m sure this stark divide would not continue over a larger sample size, and that some US-registrant-owned registrations are being sliced back quite a bit, too, but the dramatic nature of the difference really stuck out.

Example #1

MAYBANK (stylized). Reg: 4442149. Malayan Banking Berhad (Malaysian company). 44(e) registration. Class 16 and 36.

An Office Action audit requesting proof of use for “bond paper” and “plastic wrap” in Cl. 16 and “insurance claims processing” and “issuing travelers cheques” in Cl. 36. The audit prompted a response on far more than just the audited goods and services – the registrant filed a Response deleting huge swathes of goods and services, including the audited goods and more. Of the 223 words for which use was claimed in the Section 8 & 15 filing, 24 words remained after the audit process.

Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes, namely, bond paper, copier paper, graph paper, note paper, cardboard; brochures about financial services; catalogues in the field of financial services; leaflets about financial services; magazines in the field of financial services; packaging and wrapping paper of cardboard and paper; plastic wrap; plastic bags for packaging; pamphlets in the field of financial services; printed periodicals in the field of financial services; printed matters, namely, paper signs, books, manuals, curriculum, newsletters, informational cards and brochures in the field of financial services; paper articles, namely, written articles in the field of financial services; printed materials for advertising and promotional purposes, namely, printed advertising boards of paper and cardboard; paper banners; signs for advertising and display purposes, namely, printed advertising boards of paper and cardboard, paper display boxes, and display cards primarily composed of cardboard; stationery; forms, namely, blank forms, business forms, and order forms; writing pads; office requisites in the nature of pens; pencils, pens, and pencil holders in International Class 16; and
Banking; credit card services; financial evaluation, namely, financial evaluation for insurance purposes; exchanging money; financing services; investments, namely, investment brokerage, investment management, investment of funds of others; insurance, namely, insurance agency and brokerage, insurance administration, insurance claims processing; guarantees, namely, cheque guarantee card services, financial guarantee and surety services; cheque verification; issuing travelers cheques in International Class 36.

Example #2

SPANISH BREAKFAST (stylized). Reg. No. 4290593. 66(a) registration. Organización Interprofesional del Aceitede Oliva Español. Class 16, 29, 35.

Audit Office Action requesting samples of use for “postage stamps” and “pen nibs” in Class 16 and “rental of advertising space” and “services, namely, offering business management assistance in the establishment and operation of olive oil sales” in Class 35. Class 29 was not audited; the Section 8 & 15 filing already included a specimen for the sole product in that class, olive oil. The Office Action Response deleted all the audited goods and services, and quite a bit more. Of the 229 words in the ID for which a Section 8 & 15 were filed, only 59 words survived the audit process.

Books, publications, periodicals, magazines, catalogs, prospectuses, and printed matter all in the field of promoting the consumption of olive oil; newspapers; printed forms; calendars; printed tickets, posters, notebooks, note cards, envelopes and writing paper, letter trays, wrapping paper; printed matter, namely, brochures in the field of promoting the consumption of olive oil; bookbinding material; photographs, pictures, chromolithographs, paper labels; postage stamps; graphic art reproductions and representations; stationery; pen nibs, ball-point pens, pencils; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; instructional and teaching materials in the field of promoting the consumption of olive oil; plastic materials for packing, namely, plastic bags for packing; printing type; printing blocks in International Class 16

Wholesale and retail store services featuring olive oil; import and export agencies, advertising services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others; exclusive commercial and sales representation for all kinds of products, namely, promotional marketing and representation services for sale of olive oil; advertising services; dissemination of advertising matter and rental of advertising space; distributing prospectuses, directly or by mail order, and distribution of samples; business services, namely, commercial or industrial company operation or management assistance services; franchise services, namely, offering business management assistance in the establishment and operation of olive oil sales; advisor services and consultation in business management namely, business organization, business estimates, business reports and research in business matters, market studies, business information agency and import and export agencies in International Class 35

Example #3

DISNEY JUNIOR (stylized). Reg. No. 4094327. 1(a) registration. Class 41.

Audit Office Action requesting samples of use for “production, presentation, distribution of television programs” and “on-line entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games.” The Office Action Response provided several additional specimens for each. No services were deleted.

Example #4

ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL TOOL. Reg. No. 3605472. 1(a) registration. Class 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 22.

Audit Office Action requesting samples of use requesting use for a pair of goods in each class. The Office Action Response included a declaration from an executive and photos of each audited product; no goods were deleted.

The practical impact of Examination Guide 1-20 so far.

After quite a lot of complaints from the trademark bar, the USPTO issued revised Examination Guide 1-20 on Feb. 15, 2020 — the day it became effective. The updates primarily related to the email requirements for represented applicants, but the Exam Guide itself is much broader. This blog post breaks down the categories in the Exam Guide and, probably more helpfully, describes the first handful of Office Actions that point to the Exam Guide to get a feel for how the Office is actually going to use it.

E-Filing Requirements and Application Requirements

Between Sections I and IV of the Guide, e-filing is now generally mandatory. But, a handful of exceptions where paper submissions are acceptable. These requirements have generated zero Office Actions so far – we’ll have to wait for the first major TEAS implosion to see the practical impact.

Correspondence

Much ink has been spilled over the email address requirements, and we won’t belabor the point here – the Office has not yet issued any Office Actions addressing the email portion of the Guide.

Specimens

The Guide formalizes some existing trends, tightening up examination of certain types of specimens in use claims.

  • Requires labels or tags to be physically attached to the goods or to show “actual use in commerce” via informative information like UPC bar codes or lists of contents.
  • Requires more information about the URL submitted for web page specimens. The Office hasn’t quite caught up to the idea of non-static URLs, but oh well.
  • Emphasizes that mockups and digitally created illustrations and the like are inadquate.

All of the Office Actions issued so far that refer to Exam Guide 1-20 relate to specimen issues.

  • Class 7: 1 (OA: refused specimen as referring to sensor technology integrated into a pump rather than a pump)
  • Class 9/42: 1 (OA: web portion of specimen was missing URL/date)
  • Class 21: 1 (OA: web portion of specimen was missing URL/date)
  • Class 25: 3 (1: OA: specimen was tag or label unattached to the goods; 2: OA: specimen was tag or label unattached to the goods; 3: OA: specimen was tag or label unattached to the goods)
  • Class 10/41: 1 (OA: specimen in the service class did not include date)
  • Class 20/40: 2 (same mark for each; OA: specimen had screenshot of website but did not show mark on product, plus URL/date issue)

At least so far, it’s really just two problems cropping up: the lack of a date on website screenshots, and free-floating labels with no connection to the product. The label issue has always been dumb, and was exploited for years by unknowing or less scrupulous applicants. It’s a great fix.

The web-based specimen changes are a mixed bag. The URL requirement is along the right lines, in that it attempts to differentiate “live” sites from mock-ups. It could be better – it makes no attempt to differentiate between public and “gated” sites that are not publicly accessible, which would get at the “use” issue better, and makes no allowances for non-static URLs, which impacts the ability of Examiners to check on the claimed use. The date requirement is a bit more problematic – most browsers do not show date information on-screen, and many websites print to PDF very poorly, so adding a date requires some third-party software or extra steps.

We will continue to watch as the use of Exam Guide 1-20 evolves, and especially as the Office stats examining the email issue.

Filing Trends – Starting 2020 Right

The first week of January can be pretty slow for a lot of trademark practices, with the New Year holiday impacting productivity – albeit in a fun and good way. This post looks at the first week of the new year – Jan. 1 – Jan. 7, 2020. That’s a tiny slice of the year, but it’s still informative to see what happened in this small segment of time. Even in a “slow” week, almost 6,000 new trademark applications were filed. (There may be more in raw numbers if you read this in a few months, since Madrid-based applications and extensions of protection can take a while to propagate into the USPTO’s systems.)

This blog posts breaks down the data in several ways: the number of applications by country, by class, by applicant, and by filing counsel.

Applications by Country

The US (4,500 applications) and China (950) were far and away the two largest home countries of applicants, with Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea, and the UK all clearing the 50 application mark. Others with at least ten applications follow:

CountryApplications
USA4540
China951
Canada79
Hong Kong65
South Korea53
United Kingdom51
Israel25
Taiwan24
Germany19
Australia15
India15
Japan13
France10

Most Common Filing Classes

What are all these applications actually being filed for? We broke down the filing data for you. Multi-class applications are counted separately, and I have included the top multi-class application combinations to provide some additional detail on the top areas of overlap.

Int. Cl.Applications
25567
41466
9455
35389
28199
36197
3195
42195
5176
21156
16148

The most common multi-class pairings follow. Most of these are to be expected: software and hosted software; software and entertainment services; miscellaneous service overlaps, clothing and retail, merchandised goods, and food products.

Int. Cl. GroupingsApplications
9; 4257
9; 4135
35; 4228
35; 4122
25; 4119
35; 3618
16; 4115
25; 3515
9; 16; 4114
16; 2513
29; 3012

Busiest Applicants

The vast majority of applicants filed only a single application – there were 4,600 owners for those 6,000 applications. Only 250 filed more than three applications in the week; of these, a handful stood out for their filing volume. A couple of the largest applicants have large trademark portfolios, but most of the higher-volume applicants saw most of their total trademark filing activity in this week – not what we would have expected.

ApplicantApplications in PeriodTotal Applications
Adam $mith Laboratories, Inc.2432
CUBEAGE LIMITED2424
TALES IP, L.L.C.2245
International Fasteners, Inc.1627
XU BOXIN1417
Callisto Media Inc.1218
Exact Sciences Corporation1278
Miami Corporation12174
SG GAMING, INC.121787
Guangzhou Shiyuan Electronic Technology Company Limited1121
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.112822
BreathableBaby, LLC1055
Shanxi Huacai Zhongxing E-commerce Co., Ltd.1021

Busiest Filing Correspondents

We also ran the numbers on filing correspondents in the week. Those with ten or more applications in that week are included below. It’s a mix of busy practices – a number of large, multi-office and multi-practice firms, consumer-centric trademark shops, firms with strong ties to jurisdictions with high levels of filings into the US, and active smaller practices.

Correspondent FirmApplications
LAW OFFICE OF YI WAN119
LAW OFFICE OF TONY HOM67
LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, P.C.47
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTING, LLC46
DI LI LAW, P.C.44
NI, WANG & MASSAND, PLLC35
THE LICHY LAW FIRM, P.C.35
LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD.34
GOLDMAN LAW GROUP33
KOH LAW FIRM, LLC.32
MUNCY, GEISSLER, OLDS & LOWE, P.C.32
BAYRAMOGLU LAW OFFICES LLC30
VALAUSKAS CORDER LLC24
IPSPEEDY CONSULTING COMPANY, LLC23
LOZA & LOZA, LLP23
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP22
TALES IP, L.L.C.22
ARENT FOX LLP21
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP21
LAW OFFICE OF CURT HANDLEY17
FRIJOUF, RUST & PYLE, P.A.16
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP16
K&L GATES LLP15
SHAN ZHU LAW GROUP, P. C.15
DLA PIPER LLP (US)14
SAUSSER SUMMERS, PC14
COBB COLE13
PRYOR CASHMAN LLP13
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.13
HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP12
JPG LEGAL12
LADAS & PARRY LLP12
RIMON, P.C.12
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION12
THE SLADKUS LAW GROUP12
WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC.12
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP11
BROWN BROTHERS LAW LLP11
THE MCGHEE LAW FIRM11
LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN LASKI10
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.10
ROTHSCHILD & ASSOCIATES LLC10
WEN IP LLC10

Thanks for taking a look at this filing data from the first week of 2020!

Results of the TM TKO 2020 Trademark Practice Economic Survey

For the past two weeks, TM TKO ran a survey about how trademark professionals are feeling about their practice in 2020. We’ll summarize the results in this blog post. Thanks to our users and to participants on Oppendhal Patent Law Firm’s e-trademarks listserv for their responses!

About TM TKO

A very quick word about us – TM TKO has been providing daily or subscription-based access to a variety of trademark research tools since 2015. Our customers include AmLaw 100 firms, trademark boutiques, solo practitioners, government agencies, in-house counsel, and more. We had our best year ever in 2019, and are looking forward to 2020.

We aim to help trademark lawyers with three main pillars of all successful trademark practices: solving everyday problems, solving hard problems, and growing practices.

Everyday problems: our clearance, search, and watch tools help you with your day-to-day practice needs. Hard problems: specialized research tools like trademark Examiner analytics, automated and manual Office Action research, and comparative research via ThorCheck® can help overcome difficult prosecution refusals. Growing your practice: we have an expanding set of marketing solutions to help grow your client base and generate more projects for existing clients.

Haven’t used TM TKO yet? It’s free to try for 30 days.

To the Results!

Trademark Practice – Size and Geography

50% of respondents practice in groups of 2 to 5 trademark lawyers; the rest were evenly split between solo practitioners and larger groups.

Almost half of respondents were from the east coast, with about 20% each from the west coast and southeast, and a smattering elsewhere. All but a couple of respondents were American lawyers. Of those, about 70% were in large cities, with the rest in small-to-medium size cities.

Expectations for 2020

People felt pretty good about their personal practices and about their firms’ trademark practices – just above 50% felt like their personal practice was improving and 40% felt their firm’s trademark practice was improving (respondents were high achievers, apparently). About 40% expected a similar year, and under 10% expected a worse year or couldn’t guess how the year would go.

US prosecution work was the main growth area for 66% of respondents, with smaller numbers seeing growth in international prosecution, non-litigation disputes, and prosecution. Litigation was a growth area for only 15% of respondents, and a slowing practice area for 20%.

Client relationships remain key – 63% of respondents generate most of their new work from existing clients; domestic referrals are a key for 45% of respondents and international referrals from foreign counsel for 28% of respondents. Respondents’ own business development efforts were only a significant factor for 25% of respondents.

The low level of direct business development efforts maybe isn’t a good thing, though; 45% of respondents listed client acquisition as their single biggest challenge for 2020. Staffing, price pressures and commoditization, technology, and practice costs all had over 20% of respondents worried. Two things generated lower levels of worry: clients paying (17%) and client retention (11%). Once clients are in the door, they tend to both pay their bills and stick around.

Technology

A lot of lawyers changed some of the technology tools that they use for practice in 2019, but seem less inclined to do so in 2020. Search, watch, research, prosecution research, and docketing tools all polled over 25% for 2019; only other research tools (over 50%) cracked the 20% mark for 2020. Respondents were generally enthused about technology improving their practice and its efficiency, although there several respondents comments on technology-adjacent concerns about filing mills and unauthorized practice of law rules.

The USPTO and Its Performance

The good feelings end here. 62% of respondents think the USPTO is doing a worse or much worse job in examination than in recent years, and only one respondent thought it was improving. 66% of respondents said that the USPTO has gotten better at nothing in the last several years; about 20% commended the USPTO on changes for website usability and 10% on improved TTAB decisions. The most common gripes: 40% took issue with examination on 2(d) issues, 30% on 2(e) issues, 45% with website usability, and 45% other prosecution issues. 17% felt there were no negative changes and 10% found that TTAB decisions were getting worse.

The “disastrous implementation” of the domicile and email rules was specifically called out by a number of respondents, as were specimen issues and the problems the USPTO is having keeping the registry clean of marginal use claims (and its spillover onto legitimate applicants).

Travel, Education, and Networking

75% of respondents usually attend the INTA Annual Meeting, by far the most of any meeting. 40% go to an unlisted event, with 20% or fewer going to the INTA Leadership Meeting, the AIPLA Annual Meeting, a state bar annual meeting, or the ABA IP Bar annual meeting.

This year, the travel to Singapore appears to be really hitting INTA attendance, at least among the North American lawyers who responded to this survey. Only 31% said they were attending this year (a 40% drop); anecdotally, people suggested that the costs and travel time commitments are the main reasons for this decision. TM TKO is in this group, too – we are allocating our time and conference budget elsewhere this year. One wonders if potential late-attendee numbers might drop as well, due to the outbreak of the coronavirus in the region. Other conferences had roughly similar numbers.

Conclusion

We hope your trademark practice has a great 2020, and if TM TKO can do anything to help make that a reality, don’t hesitate to contact us.

The Rise of IP Clinics

The USPTO runs a program to allow law school clinics to engage in practice before the Office. It provides law students great practice experience while they are still in law school, and is generally acclaimed as a great success. The Office most recently expanded the roster of IP clinics in 2016-2017, adding twenty law schools in mid-2008. The program also provides for expedited examination, so students can both file and handle and prosecution issues in a single academic semester or quarter.

The Office prepared a 2016 report on clinic activity from 2009-2016. Over those seven years, 2,000 trademark applications were filed by clinics as counsel, and 2,700 students were involved in clinics (both trademark and patent work). The

At TM TKO, we have been getting our set of law clinic users (it’s free for clinical / academic use!) ready for the semester, and the clinic program has been on our mind. So, we ran some updated numbers. These numbers are not going to match the USPTO’s figures from the clinics’ biannual reporting requirements. We do not have access to that data. Instead, our estimates based on the use of email addresses listed in the USPTO’s clinic list. Some clinics will use other emails for their USPTO communications, and our search methodology will not pull in those results. So, don’t get too hung up on specific numbers — this data only shows general trends.

The number of clinic-based filings per year have continued to rise, from the 400-500 range to over 650 last year. Much of that rise appears to be due to the expanded roster of active clinics. There is also a pretty wide range of trademarks being handled, from just a couple per year for some clinics to fifty or more for a couple of very ambitious (and busy) clinics. We don’t have student numbers for each clinic, so it’s impossible to say whether these are just more heavily attended or doing more filings per student.

IP Clinics are providing students valuable opportunities to understand the nuts and bolts of trademark practice and to build client relationship management skills. Both are crucial in running an active IP practice, and the USPTO’s clinical programs are giving today’s law students a great head start on practice that was not available ten years ago.

Participating Law Schools201920182017
American University, Washington College of Law954
Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Conner College of Law614642
Baylor Law School5128
Boston College Law School748
California Western School of Law171617
Fordham University School of Law340
Howard Universtity000
Indiana University Maurer School of Law212412
Indiana University McKinney School of Law001
Lewis & Clark Law School131714
Liberty University School of Law100
Lincoln Law School of San Jose000
New York Law School6100
North Carolina Central University School of Law1268
Northeastern University School of Law1034
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law312122
Roger Williams University School of Law201
Rutgers Law School323
Seattle University School of Law1228
South Texas College of Law Houston262923
Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law15310
Southern University Law Center310
Suffolk University Law School21015
Syracuse University College of Law71013
Texas A&M University School of Law954
The George Washington University School of Law894
Thomas Jefferson School of Law71613
Tulane University Law School522
UIC John Marshall Law School81314
UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law201313
University of Akron School of Law000
University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law21108
University of California, Irvine School of Law500
University of Connecticut School of Law171521
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law000
University of Idaho College of Law514
University of Maryland School of Law544025
University of Miami School of Law1972
University of Nebraska College of Law1978
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law16105
University of Notre Dame Law School13136
University of Pennsylvania Law School2050
University of Puerto Rico School of Law001
University of Richmond School of Law192716
University of San Diego School of Law171516
University of San Francisco School of Law335626
University of St. Thomas School of Law28101
University of Tennesee College of Law141016
University of Washington School of Law6215
Vanderbilt Law School201412
Western New England University School of Law334
Total652528449

What's in a Brand – Conestoga

Conestoga” is an English word for the Susquehannock people of Pennsylvania, and as such has given its name to a variety of place locations around the US and Canada. However, the word has become best known in association with the Conestoga wagon, a burly hauler first made in a small Pennsylvania town of the same name, used to ship people and goods across rugged terrain as the United States expanded towards the Pacific.

I got curious about the branding cachet of “Conestoga” – it’s clearly something that has a longstanding and good reputation, but it’s also an antiquated item rather than up-to-date technology.

Active / Inactive and Class Breakdown

Int’l Class Registered and activePending and activeInactive and previously registeredInactive and never registered
3001 Avon Products0
7001 Parker Sweeper0
91 Conestoga Wood Specialties000
111 Norman Hoover Welding01 GNI Waterman
1 Hydro-Temp
0
123 Aero Industries
3 Conestoga Wagon Co.
01 Aero Industries
1 Bill Rivers Trailers
1 Richard Hoover
1 Sperry Corp.
1 Annalisa Gojmerac & Francois Dor
1 Carlisle Intangible
1 Conestoga Custom Products
1 Alan Kirk
1 Laverne Owen
1 Space Services
16001 Metropolitan Museum of Art0
18001 Akona Adventure Gear1 Ron Carriere & Charles Lindner
1 TAC Holdings
191 C B Structures000
202 Conestoga Wood Specialties001 Quaker Maid Kitchens
1 Ron Carriere & Charles Lindner
220001 Ron Carriere & Charles Lindner
250001 Davidson Shoe
28001 Conestoga Wagon Works
1 Konestoga Korral Products
0
292 Conestoga Meat Packers000
304 C. H. Guenther & Son LLC001 Pepperidge Farm
310001 Conestoga Energy Partners
1 John W. Eshelman & Sons
330001 W.A. Haller
3501 Conestoga Ceramic Tile Distributors1 Conestoga Steaks1 The Conestoga Group
361 Conestoga Bank
1 Conestoga Capital Advisors
01 Conestoga Capital Advisors
1 Conestoga Family of Funds
3 Conestoga Capital Advisors
1 Paul Trudea
1 The Conestoga Group
371 C B Structures01 C B Structures1 Paul Trudea
38004 Conestoga Enterprises0
390001 Club Conestoga
401 Conestoga Wood Specialties000
421 Conestoga Ceramic Tile Distributors
1 Conestoga Wood Specialties
001 Conestoga Steak House
432 Conestoga Ranch000

The trends in the current trademark registrations are clear: transportation goods (obviously) and construction goods and services (building on the wagons’ rugged reputation) are the most popular, with ranch and food-related services and products following behind. There was also a pair of co-existing registrations in the financial space, again playing on the reputation for ruggedness and timelessness. Historically, those trends generally held, with a few additional more marks playing on the geographic meaning more than the historical wagon meaning scattered in.

Interestingly, several of the current registrations for CONESTOGA are for wagons in Class 12, and owned by the Conestoga Wagon Co. The company makes luxury versions of wagons in the classic Conestoga shape, and extremely nice-looking ones at that. It seems to have encountered no distinctiveness objections under Section 2 during examination, but the registrations seem vulnerable to a challenge on those grounds.

There are an almost never-ending set of concerns for companies when selecting a brand. We hope this dive into the brand impression of the CONESTOGA mark and how companies are using it was informative!

TM TKO: 2020 Trademark Economic & Practice Forecast

TM TKO is compiling data on trademark lawyers’ expectations for the new year. We would love to have your feedback! Topics include the economy and the trademark bar, practice challenges, USPTO performance, and more. All data will be used only in aggregate form, and published for the benefit of the trademark community; your individual response will not be used in any way.

To take the survey, go here.

Your feedback and insights will be shared with the trademark community. Make sure to visit TM TKO’s blog to see the results later this month.